Elizabeth Abraham v. State of Kerala & Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944 ``` # **`WP(C) NO. 33401 OF 2017`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ELIZABETH ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, THALAPPADY, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL PRANAVAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `2 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686862.` - `3 THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686862.` - `4 THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCE STUDIES GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.` ``` BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 33401/17 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner says that she has been continuously working as a Lecturer in the department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, under the 2[nd] respondent – Mahatma Gandhi University, since July, 1996. She says that though she was selected through a process of interview conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee by the University, she was appointed only as a Lecturer on contract basis and that same position continues even today. 2. The petitioner asserts that she is entitled to have services regularised as a Lecturer under the University and that several others have obtained such benefit on the strength of Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments of this Court, which have now become final because they have been upheld by a learned Division Bench of this Court through Ext.P18 judgment. She adds that a Special Leave Petition was attempted against the judgments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also failed; and hence that she is now eminently eligible to be regularised in service, which benefit had been offered to others identically WPC 33401/17 3 situated as her through Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments. 3. The petitioner alleges that, however, instead of doing so, she has now been issued Ext.P23 letter by the University saying that the department of Pharmaceutical Sciences has been transferred to the 4[th] respondent – Society, but without mentioning anything about her service conditions or tenure. She thus prays that competent Authority of the 2[nd] respondent – M.G.University be directed to consider her claim for regularisation of her service in the department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, adverting to Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4. The afore submissions of Sri.K.R.Ganesh, appearing along with Smt.Anu Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the University, saying that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits under Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments only if she is able to establish that she is identically situated as the petitioners therein. He submitted that, on the contrary, the University has information that she is not so placed because she WPC 33401/17 4 obtained her Post Graduate Degree only in the year 2012. He added that law has been now well settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti and Others [Civil Appeal No.2661/2015] that all differential treatment cannot be viewed as an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution and that if there is a reasonable basis for classification, such is permissible. 5. Sri.Surin George Ipe submitted that he is making the afore submission for the reason that the petitioner cannot be seen to be standing identically as the petitioners in Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments. He concluded his submissions saying that, in any event, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits at this point of time because Exts.P15, P16 and P17 judgments were delivered as early as in the years 2010, 2013 and 2016 and hence that the principles of delay and acquiescence would apply against her. 6. In reply, Sri.K.R.Ganesh refuted the allegations of delay and latches on the part of his client saying that; for one, Ext.P17 judgment was delivered only in the year 2013, while this Writ Petition was filed within a year thereafter; and that for the WPC 33401/17 5 second, in the meanwhile, his client had approached the University through several representations which have not been answered until now. th 7. Interestingly, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan appearing for the 4 respondent, submitted that his client has no role to play in the controversy now projected by the petitioner and that it is for the University to answer it. 8. Even when I hear Sri.Surin George Ipe as afore, the fact remains that the University has never considered the petitioner’s claims nor has answered it in any manner. The only document on record is Ext.P23, which does not answer the petitioner’s claims, but merely says that the department wherein she was working has been transferred to the 4th respondent. However, as is also conceded by the M.G. University, the Honourable Supreme Court has delivered judgments declaring that teachers of such transferred institutions will be construed as those of the University in the sector; and hence, certainly, become obligated to consider her claims and answer it in the manner as is warranted in law. WPC 33401/17 6 9. That being said, the question whether there is delay from the part of the petitioner which would defeat her claims are not matters which I propose to answer specifically at this stage since am firm in my mind that all such issues will have to be considered and answered by the University appositely. However, such consideration will have to be done by the University specifically adverting to the submissions of Sri.K.R.Ganesh that Ext.P17 was delivered only in the year 2013 and confirmed by a learned Division Bench in 2016 and that there were representations preferred by the petitioner thereafter. Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the competent Authority of the University to hear the petitioner and take a decision on her claims for regularisation, adverting to Exts.P15, P16 and P17; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the petitioner is found to be similarly or identically situated as the petitioners WPC 33401/17 7 in Exts.P15, P16 and P17, the University will grant her the relief claimed but being with liberty to decide whether the same stands defeated solely on account of delay, if any. In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this judgment before the competent Authority of the University, along with all her testimonials and credentials and the time frame afore fixed would start from the date on which it is so produced. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` RR ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` WPC 33401/17 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33401/2017`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE B.PHARM DEGREE`| ||`CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE COPY OF M.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF`| ||`THE PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE`| ||`DT.8-10-2002 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY`| ||`THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 3-7-`| ||`1996.`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-7-1996`| ||`ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 5-2-97`| ||`ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY.`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE.`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.6-12-2005.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DT.3-`| ||`9-2008.`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`TRUE COPY UNIVERSITY ORDER DT.23-7-2009.`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. 27891/09.`| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.3-2-2010.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15-5-2015 FROM`| ||`REGISTRAR.`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.1499/2009.`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.P.NO.20680/2009.`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.P.NO.25493/2011.`| |`EXHIBIT P18`|`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.A.NO.760/2013.`| |`EXHIBIT P19`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.3-7-17 OF THE`| ||`SUPREME COURT.`| |`EXHIBIT P20`|`TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.101/2017/H.EDN.`| ||`DATED 6-4-2017.`| |`EXHIBIT P21`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5-5-2017.`| |`EXHIBIT P22`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-6-2017.`| |`EXHIBIT P23`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1-8-2017 OF THE`| ||`M.G.UNIVERSITY.`|